Help please - difficult issue around child access and terminal illness

[Unhappytraveler]

Hoping someone might be able to help with the following...not really a AIBU but have posted for traffic:

I'm going to have to be slightly vague about the info as it is a very sad and sensitive situation but the crux of it is that someone close to me (let's call them A) has in the last few days been given a terminal cancer diagnosis. 3-6 months was suggested but they aren't doing too well and sadly we think it might be a lot less than that. There is no possibility of a cure and they have chosen not to have any treatment which might give them a few more months but cause more pain etc.

A has a grandchild who they haven't seen for several years due to the fact that As child B ( the non resident parent/ NRP) was under criminal investigation - the offence did not relate to the child but the child's (resident) parent said they would no longer agree to visitation or contact with nrp or their family, including A. Prior to that B had 40/60 access.

B decided (and this isn't intended to be a debate about rights and wrongs of that decision) to step away temporarily a couple of years ago rather than fight for contact but with every intention of re establishing contact in the near future...obviously the current unexpected situation now means that there is some urgency to do so for As sake.

At the time B was told they could go to court or that social services would be prepared to try and mediate to facilitate contact. SS advised that from a child protection perspective they had no concerns over access.

So what I'm trying to help the family with is what's the quickest way to achieve some contact with the child for A whilst they are still with us. Clearly B could apply to court but I'm anticipating that's a process that could take a while especially if the other parent refuses to engage ( which is a possibility) and time is not on As side.

Is there any way social services could assist? Given that previously the family were advised they might (but 2 or so years on and with the current traumatic situation no one can remember who to contact)

Lawyers have no doubt access can be restored, and that this can be done while A is still here. I believe the application will be for contact for B but in the immediate term for child and RP (should RP prefer to accompany child rather than allow B to do so) to come to see A, alternatively for a Skype call if they cannot come in person.

Whatever happens, I hope the child’s best interests are prioritised. While my heart does go out to the person who’s terminally ill at a relatively young age, this child’s emotional well-being should not be compromised. I think A needs to prepare for the fact that, due to child’s age, they may well decline contact and have their views heard by the court.
It’s a very sad situation for A, of course, no doubt about that.

Oh good. I'm glad that B is getting back in contact with their offspring. Sounds like it's long overdue.

What I think you’re forgetting in this is the child’s wishes....no court will order contact if the child says they don’t want it. No prizes for guessing what this child will say if asked!

Lawyers have no doubt access can be restored, and that this can be done while A is still here

This is batshit. No lawyer would ever guarantee that. Far, far too complex a case with key variables outside their, and their client's, control.

You’re getting some seriously dodgy ‘professional’ advice. No decent family lawyer would guarantee this, and certainly not within any specific timescales. Bonkers.

@RiggedUpSquare and don't forget the lawyers are also doing it FOC!

I didn't say it had been guaranteed. They have the full facts and are aware of legal practices and their advice is sound. It just doesn't agree with views of lay posters expressed on this thread, so be it.
It is of course understood that the child will be allowed to choose. Should child decide, having been given a free choice, not to see B or A then that decision would be honoured. However both B and A who know the child a lot better than anyone on the thread, expect that will not be what the child decides. I'll defer to their judgment.

I think you’re still missing the point that many posters on this thread don’t think that the child should be presented with the choice to see A because it’s a huge burden to shoulder at their age. I have an exceptionally mature 12yo myself and she’s a born people pleaser, which means she would inevitably say yes even though it may not be in her own best interests. She is estranged from her biological fathers side of the family and I would block any attempt to emotionally coerce her in to seeing a dying relative, at their behest and for their own comforts.

The family have had years to sort this out. Years.

but OP you have perhaps inadvertently hit on the crux of the matter Should child decide, having been given a free choice,.

It is only a free choice if it is given in the way the SW on the previous page posted. "Sorry to tell you this DC but granny is very unwell".

THEN the child can say could I see granny? or something else. Any pressure applied either way is depriving the child of free choice.

Free lawyers?

Free?

Wonders will never cease.

@Unhappytraveler they haven't seen the child for a number of very very formative years....... people change, children grow up and they form different opinions on the parent that's abandoned them.

There's no intent from A or B to apply any pressure on that choice. How the RP deals with it is a matter for their conscience. As we understand it RP will do and say nothing absent a court order. We don't know how true that is of course.

Perhaps spangly, perhaps not. We'll see once the child is allowed to choose.

@Unhappytraveler not when but If! Although with your very pro updates of assurance of FOC lawyers, I'm sure come two weeks it will be a positive reunion and the child is over joyed with contact.

Out of interest why are the lawyers doing it FOC?

But OP what you dont seem to get that a free choice is only that: "granny is very unwell". Not 'would you like to see her' or 'you should go and see her'. It's too much to put on a 12 year old, and in RP's case if granny hasnt been seen or bothered to be in contact for the last few years I might pass on the message but otherwise let sleeping dogs lie.

You don’t hear of Tesco providing services FOC.

Or Starbucks.

Or Travelodge.

However both B and A who know the child a lot better than anyone on the thread, expect that will not be what the child decides. I'll defer to their judgment.

If they think they still know a child well after 2+ years of not having any contact with then then they are deluded. Children change massively in that time scale. Especially when you don’t see those changes in increments

Yolofish, A has sent letters, cards and presents to the child regularly. None have been returned, nor have they been acknowledged. A had no other means of contact. So if child has been passed any of those, child will know A was still in contact/ still thinking of them.

@Unhappytraveler why are the lawyers doing it FOC?

OP I get that you are desperately anxious about A. But the most important person here is the 12 year old, and you have been sketchy with your answers about the family fall out and B's role... so people are quite rightly on the side of the child and his/her future mental safety.

Just write a f"&+king letter to the mother and post it!!! That's ALL you can do.

Sorry to hear the news but seriously...

Wow. It gets more interesting the more I read!

It sounds like you are being told what you want to hear by the lawyer. If you are in the UK, the process to get to contact is long and drawn out after a long break in contact. It is unlikely that it would be resolved within six months. The RP could (and will from what you've said) contest contact of all forms.